The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:I figured I would take the first bullet. You nabbed Long Con instead.

rabbit8 wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Valar Morghulis.

Valar Dohaeris

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

Made wrote:We should discuss the military industrial complex!

*Knock, Knock*




RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!

IRS? Jehovah's Witnesses? Long Con?

Enrique wrote:Players, come claim your prize:

http://s2.boardgame-online.com/g/game.php?g=iNAv&k=ufP

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Longcon = Lagoon

Made wrote:[Longcon, you should ditch the dead weight while you can. Join an alignment with actual people in it, so you're not forced to defend an afker. How would that make you look LC? I mean, with the gap between 2nd and last poster shrinking, we're going to need another logical person to vote for after Nisani, and you'd be next on the list, especially considering some players opinion on Nisani already

boo wrote:

Long Con wrote:

boo wrote:

Long Con wrote:

boo wrote:No, you wouldn't because you already haven't by voting for me without Nisani having instructed you to.

But hey, all 3 of you in your alliance have already demonstrated you aren't going to follow through on deals you make, so you're interchangeably priorities 1-3 for me.

Actually, the goal of Delta Squadron is to act as a team and support each other. That's what I have seen happening.

Actually, the requirement of any Delta Squadron member was to vote how they were told to by Nisani. Neither you or Dana did so, which already undermined the authority of your supposed leader. So clearly he is ineffectual, and only went along with what the two of you did because to do otherwise would be to lose all credibility, and have his alliance crumble on Day 1. So none of you can be trusted, since not a single one you has kept your word (to one another), and you're supposed to be an alliance. If you can't keep your word to your allies, why would anyone who ever considers making a one off deal with you believe any of you would keep up your end? They wouldn't because you've already proved you won't. Since we can therefore never work with any of the three of you in good faith, we should kill you.

It was steadfast loyalty to our team that directed our votes, anyone can see that no matter how you try to taint it.

It was self-interest guised as loyalty, yes. But it wasn't loyalty. It was you breaching one of the most important requirements Nisani created, presumably in an effort to take control of your alliance out from under him, and have minions who will do your bidding, and who you can easily NK once you get them doing exactly what you want them to do, since it gives you excellent cover with the WIFOM.

boo wrote:

Long Con wrote:

boo wrote:No, you wouldn't because you already haven't by voting for me without Nisani having instructed you to.

But hey, all 3 of you in your alliance have already demonstrated you aren't going to follow through on deals you make, so you're interchangeably priorities 1-3 for me.

Actually, the goal of Delta Squadron is to act as a team and support each other. That's what I have seen happening.

Actually, the requirement of any Delta Squadron member was to vote how they were told to by Nisani. Neither you or Dana did so, which already undermined the authority of your supposed leader. So clearly he is ineffectual, and only went along with what the two of you did because to do otherwise would be to lose all credibility, and have his alliance crumble on Day 1. So none of you can be trusted, since not a single one you has kept your word (to one another), and you're supposed to be an alliance. If you can't keep your word to your allies, why would anyone who ever considers making a one off deal with you believe any of you would keep up your end? They wouldn't because you've already proved you won't. Since we can therefore never work with any of the three of you in good faith, we should kill you.

Bullzeye wrote:LC - I already accepted Splints' offer and am too loyal to break away now.

Bullzeye wrote:Well Nisani, I still don't understand you, but if you want to encourage people to protect me then you're all right in my book.

Bullzeye wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I am offering a favor to anyone who votes now for Bullzeye.

I am offering a better favour to anyone who doesn't.

boo wrote:No, you wouldn't because you already haven't by voting for me without Nisani having instructed you to.

But hey, all 3 of you in your alliance have already demonstrated you aren't going to follow through on deals you make, so you're interchangeably priorities 1-3 for me.

unfurl wrote:...LC, who I never trust he always has a dark cloud going around...

boo wrote:And for anyone who missed the sub-text in that post: LC is a killer, and aligned with Nisani to set himself up for a clean kill.

Just wait and see.

rabbit8 wrote:It's always in question.....

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Long Con wrote:Not every alliance has those kind of stated rules.

Nisani wrote:We do not eliminate other alliances for the sake of eliminating alliances. However, if a certain alliance declares itself as an enemy of the Squadron, or works against Squadron interests, we may have no choice but to attack.

Maybe I should have waited to hear what my Leader has to say. Going off all Lone Wolf like I did with that vote may be contrary to:

Nisani wrote:The rules are that I direct the actions of the Squadron. We act as one unit, stronger together than apart. Of course, if you disagree with my leadership, you are free to leave the Squadron... at your own risk. It's a dangerous world out there.

Sorry, Nisani. I was acting for the good of Delta Squadron.

Day one and yoou are breaking the rules of your squadron already. lol :P

All part of my eventual strategy!

This was the guy claiming to be loyal earlier, right?

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Long Con wrote:Not every alliance has those kind of stated rules.

Nisani wrote:We do not eliminate other alliances for the sake of eliminating alliances. However, if a certain alliance declares itself as an enemy of the Squadron, or works against Squadron interests, we may have no choice but to attack.

Maybe I should have waited to hear what my Leader has to say. Going off all Lone Wolf like I did with that vote may be contrary to:

Nisani wrote:The rules are that I direct the actions of the Squadron. We act as one unit, stronger together than apart. Of course, if you disagree with my leadership, you are free to leave the Squadron... at your own risk. It's a dangerous world out there.

Sorry, Nisani. I was acting for the good of Delta Squadron.

Day one and yoou are breaking the rules of your squadron already. lol :P

Dana wrote:I sort of feel like splitting up into so many little "teams" is just making it easier for the killers. If we're all against each other, then it'll be easier for them to kill us off while letting us just vote each other off. Though I do like the idea of the comfort of a group. Hmm. I'm still unsure who to vote for at this point.

Nisani wrote:We do not eliminate other alliances for the sake of eliminating alliances. However, if a certain alliance declares itself as an enemy of the Squadron, or works against Squadron interests, we may have no choice but to attack.

Nisani wrote:The rules are that I direct the actions of the Squadron. We act as one unit, stronger together than apart. Of course, if you disagree with my leadership, you are free to leave the Squadron... at your own risk. It's a dangerous world out there.

S~V~S wrote:

Roxy wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

Roxy wrote:I am making a group called the Omega Whores - who must say that Enrique is indeed suave to join

Linky lmao @Epi

I can't believe you are making a whores group without me

never without you! You are automatically a whore, no need to say it - like SVS and Kate it is in our nature

It was a joke but if people want to join my Omega Whore group you can but you will have to prove yourself an actual whore first

Will you take honorary Boy Whores? I have prior commitments to two gentlemen, but once a whore, always a whore

Dana wrote:I am also heavily considering joining Nisani's group. Especially if its religion is based around praising Mr. Baller Enri.

fingersplints wrote:I won't be around much until Monday. My mom is coming to London to visit me, and she has never been so I have to do touristy stuff. I'll still be able to post at night time.

Elohcin wrote:

Long Con wrote:Is anyone interested in having Long Con as an alliance member? I'm notoriously loyal.

HA!

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Is anyone interested in having Long Con as an alliance member? I'm notoriously loyal.

I don't know. I'm leaning on lynching married couples, first......

How convenient, after I called you out on being a power role.

Grammar Nazis are more my cup of tea though.......

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Is anyone interested in having Long Con as an alliance member? I'm notoriously loyal.

I don't know. I'm leaning on lynching married couples, first......

G-Man wrote:By the way, I'm weekly subject over in the Interrogation Room. So, if there's anything you want to know about little old me, go here!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:So, deals are a thing eh? MM, you don't kill me I won't vote for you this game.

Can I do other things to you?

Epignosis wrote:You can lynch me if you want, but it won't help you reach your win condition.

boo wrote:

G-Man wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I feel like he's either kidding or crazy.

This.

Bullzeye wrote:Besides, is it even right to say you have 'suspicions' in a Last Man Standing game? Technically everyone is a baddie, or not, depending on your own perspective.

And this. The only "good guy" in the game is your own role. Even if you're not a killing role, you intend to eliminate other players through the lynch phases, which makes you a baddie to everyone else. We're not even dealing in moral relativism. It's black and white. For everyone in the game, it is them vs. 18 bad guys.

2 roles can win together, so only almost everyone.

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Which ones would you like to see out early, G?

Killas got to go. BTSC is pretty big in this set up.

And the Bipolarrabbitbear, that role is hella good. I know this, man.

G-Man wrote:

Long Con wrote:Which ones would you like to see out early, G?

Why would I want to go public with that information LC? Given that this game is all about radical self-interest, listing any roles that I'd like to see done away with conflicts with those players' radical self-interest, thereby potentially making me their target. I get the feeling that this is the kind of game where spiteful behavior is all but encouraged.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think fingersplints just won.